I am not a big fan of td's paying out half of the field. My friend just recently got 2nd open men at the new years open and only cashed $150.he paid $43 and there was 17 other players in open division. why did they payout 9 players? I heard it is a new rule, but it just makes the top dawgs who actually do something in tournys not wanna play many tourny's.

I understand the open players who didnt do all that good and still got some cash wanna play more. Most open players know why they are there CASH. Same with am 1.

What does everyone else think about this. I'm not a fan of it, are you?

If you have been paying the top 1/3 over time and only have 18 players willing to compete at those odds, maybe improving the odds for more players will increase the size of the field and therefore increase the amount paid to the winner.

By the end of the year the Winners share may be back where it was while paying 50% of a 30-40 person field.

Pay the top 1/3...If you are going to pay more, have added cash and a cut, and pay everyone that makes the cut...but some of that is down the road when we acquire bigger sponsors....but for now, I am a fan of top 1/3 of the field in all Pro divisions. In all the Am fields I think they should all play for $20, get a players package and trophy for top 3.

Paying 1/3 of pros has officially been gone in North America for more than 10 years. It was switched to 37.5% in the second half of the 90s. The current PDGA pro paytables have options for 40%, 45% and 50%, with 40% being recommended when there's no added cash.

Play international events if you want lower percentage payouts. Their PDGA TD report template has options for 25%, 33% and 40%.

I am a big fan of deep payouts, 50% of the field should be paid IMO. Finishing in the top half of the field should be rewarded too, the best players cash every tournament even when they are not on top of their game but for others and to encourage players to move up you need to give them a decent chance of cashing.

Paying 1/3 of pros has officially been gone in North America for more than 10 years. It was switched to 37.5% in the second half of the 90s. The current PDGA pro paytables have options for 40%, 45% and 50%, with 40% being recommended when there's no added cash.

Play international events if you want lower percentage payouts. Their PDGA TD report template has options for 25%, 33% and 40%.



Chuck, I realize that what you say about payouts is true. This does not mean that I don't differ with my opinion. I have never liked paying out 40 - 45 - 50% of the field, but I have complied with PDGA payout rules when running PDGA events.

What if you split added cash and entry fee cash ?

Pay entry fee cash to the top 50% and added cash to the top 30%.

I don't think that the percentage of players paid needs to change, but the difference between the top finishers needs to be reduced.

In some NT's you have guys finishing in 1st winning 2,000. 4th place, 2 strokes back gets like 800. Not right. That is why most people don't tour for long. They can't expect to win every weekend and when they play good and get beat, their paycheck is less than half of the guy who just beat him by only 1 or 2 strokes.

but for now, I am a fan of top 1/3 of the field in all Pro divisions. In all the Am fields I think they should all play for $20, get a players package and trophy for top 3.



Paying top 1/3 in Open is all you could afford if we actually had Am divisions getting this deal because there would only be few players. Our current "Ams" would be playing in an unsanctioned event concurrently against this hypothetical PDGA format for each others' money instead.

In some NT's you have guys finishing in 1st winning 2,000. 4th place, 2 strokes back gets like 800. Not right.



The PDGA pay tables were flattened for Pros in 2006 at the suggestion of and with the blessings of several top pros. However, there were several complaints during the season and some TDs refused to follow the guidelines and used steeper payouts than recommended.

but for now, I am a fan of top 1/3 of the field in all Pro divisions. In all the Am fields I think they should all play for $20, get a players package and trophy for top 3.



Paying top 1/3 in Open is all you could afford if we actually had Am divisions getting this deal because there would only be few players. Our current "Ams" would be playing in an unsanctioned event concurrently against this hypothetical PDGA format for each others' money instead.



You left out this part of the quote Chuck<font color="red"> "..but some of that is down the road when we acquire bigger sponsors.." </font>

Doesn't make sense then either. Ball golf pays out 1/2 the field. In the long run, "when we acquire bigger sponsors" we should have fewer pros and pay half the field similar to ball golf. Payouts should be flat enough so that several who are at the top are able to survive on just playing, even if they don't finish in the top 5 every event.

Payouts should be flat enough so that several who are at the top are able to survive on just playing.



Exactly!!!

I'm one of those guys who regularly finishes just below the cut. Most of our tourneys pay top third, some top forty percent. I spend most of my time wallowing in the bottom halve cards with the same guys year after year. Most of these guys I came up through ams with and were good players as MA1. But it is a big jump between am and pro around here. I dont see ten to fifteen of these guys any more because they turned pro and got beat for a couple of years never cashing, and get discouraged. Life happens, and some got married or had kids (me), which tends to cut into your practice time considerably. This makes it tough to spend the time it takes to become competative in the pro ranks. That flatter payout would keep more of those guys coming back and competing, getting better and increasing the open field size. There is a big difference between 17 -22 and 30-35 players in the open mens payout for the top guys. A number of them are dropping back to am this year, me included. If we are going to compete against each other anyways why give our entry fees to the top pros. I feel a little bit sorry for some of the the ma1 guys who are about to get beat up on this year, but the 33 -40% payout in pros is part to blame.

Honestly, If i suck at a tourny why should i get cash/ merch.
I sucked and and i still took merch. at the new years open. I dont think you should get awarded for playing horrible. My local tournys all pay 1/3 players and i love it. Cheap discs and great tourny's.

I'm all for paying top half. Couple that with a sensical entry fee policy, and the pro ranks would start to grow again.

At a minimum, the top half should be mandated at all tournies. The reason why is essentially stated by Gaff480. I have witnessed countless people reach the pro ranks and lose interest. I have also watched a lot of good pros (around 1000) lose interest as the 950-990 guys drop out and they are left in a fight amongst the top dogs. It a viscious cycle with a higher than necessary attrition rate. Paying deeper makes a lot of sense.

Honestly, If i suck at a tourny why should i get cash/ merch.
I sucked and and i still took merch. at the new years open. I dont think you should get awarded for playing horrible. My local tournys all pay 1/3 players and i love it. Cheap discs and great tourny's.



Finishing one or two strokes out of last cash in Open is far from playing "sucky"...especially on the 1/3 scale. I'm a tweener...I'm a complete bagger if I play advanced (at least according to the other adv competitors), yet I find myself coming up short of cashing in Open. If it was a requirement to payout on the 50% scale, I think Open participation would increase. Instead of having 10 open players and 30 ADV, you might see 15-20 open particpants because those higher rated ADV players could get a sniff of last cash. Now this initially would take away from the top Open player's payout as we don't have a lot of extra sponsorship cash laying around in this sport. But as more of the top level ADV guys cash....guess what, they're pro's now and they'll have to play pro from that point on. Now whether they show up to future tournaments is another question.....

I'm all for paying top half. <font color="blue"> Couple that with a sensical entry fee policy</font>, and the pro ranks would start to grow again.


Emphasis mine.

I second Mr. McCaine's thoughts here.

If you paid out the Pro ranks to the top half, then I think you would see a few more people playing in the Pro divisions.

I'd be more willing to play in the Pro divisions if entry fees were less expensive and if those divisions were paid to the top half. I've got to imagine that I'm not the only player around that feels this way... I can't afford to be a perpetual "donor" at typical prices for Pro entries...which is what a payout of the top 1/3 of the field relegates me to... But pay the top half, and all of a sudden, I might have a chance to sneak into last place cash once in a while, lower the entry fees, and I'll play in a Pro division every event.

I think that the current tendency of ever-increasing Pro entry fees is hurting the growth of the field more than anything. Get em back down to the $60-$70 range again and watch the field sizes start increasing again.

Honestly, If i suck at a tourny why should i get cash.
I dont think you should get awarded for playing horrible.



It happens to me every weekend ;)

I'm also a fan of top half...but take in mind if you don't get into the top third you shouldn't get your money back, but a meal's worth of money for the ride home would be sufficient ;)

I am not a big fan of td's paying out half of the field. My friend just recently got 2nd open men at the new years open and only cashed $150.he paid $43 and there was 17 other players in open division. why did they payout 9 players? I heard it is a new rule, but it just makes the top dawgs who actually do something in tournys not wanna play many tourny's.

I understand the open players who didnt do all that good and still got some cash wanna play more. Most open players know why they are there CASH. Same with am 1.

What does everyone else think about this. I'm not a fan of it, are you?




Was that a C-Tier your buddy cashed in?

Yes (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6321&year=2006&includeRatings=1#Open)

You can't really expect much from a C-Tier with 17 people in it at $40 a head. Now if your in a B-tier or higher and get slapped with a $150 then I would be upset. I think a C-tier is an excellent place to try and get more guys involved in the Open by paying out deeper, give guys some confidence to come back later at a higher tier.

...yeah...what Distance said!

Keep in mind too, that this appeared to be an Ice Bowl which is a charity event.

The other strike against it is that it was in Michigan where they seem to have a different interpretation of typical disc golf tournament structure and the state seems to lump it into a similar category as gambling. Maybe Michigan needs to hold more tournaments on Native American reservation land. :D

Doesn't make sense then either. Ball golf pays out 1/2 the field. In the long run, "when we acquire bigger sponsors" we should have fewer pros and pay half the field similar to ball golf. Payouts should be flat enough so that several who are at the top are able to survive on just playing, even if they don't finish in the top 5 every event.

Some tournaments pay out to dead last. British Open is one.

I like the top 50% payout

I like the top 50% payout

Yeah, deeper, flatter payouts are a good thing for the Rec division.

Well Hell, how bout winner-take-all? If you're not 1st, YOUR LAST!

This argument will go on til the end of time, or until we have big sponsers....whichever happens first.

Probably true #28003...

I see a lot of the folks complaining about low turnouts in Pro fields being a lot of the same ones wanting higher Pro entry fees.

Can't have it both ways...if you want to see larger fields then lower the entry fees.

FYI - I was the lone advocate of lowering Pro entry fees for Texas States in an effort to see a full course of Pros.

This argument will go on til the end of time, or until we have big sponsers....whichever happens first.



I vote til the end of time... ;)

Probably true #28003...

I see a lot of the folks complaining about low turnouts in Pro fields being a lot of the same ones wanting higher Pro entry fees.

Can't have it both ways...if you want to see larger fields then lower the entry fees.

FYI - I was the lone advocate of lowering Pro entry fees for Texas States in an effort to see a full course of Pros.

Lowering pro entry fees does not necessarily increase proattendance. Entry fees have less to do with pro attendance than added cash. I've run or helped run dozens of tournaments. The sanctioned tournaments I've run or helped run with the four lowest entry fees also had the lowest pro attendance. Meanwhile there is no shortage of pros for high entry fee tournaments like the Memorial, the Great Lakes Open or the USDGC.

Lowering fees is not exactly the same thing as giving people options for lower fees. Sure, there are the better pros who are quite comfortable paying whatever: it's a good bet for them. Less skilled ones are less enthused to put up high fees.

I think it is wrong to evaluate a policy by looking at specific events. It's better to view it as an iteration of multitudes of events, one after another, from an individual's view. It's easy enough: take their rating, assume a field of typical ratings, and evaluate their probability of return. Then play out that bet for successive times at different bet amounts (entry fees). The results are intuitively obvious, and the macro effects caused by this individual's eventual actions are also obvious.

As an aside, to evaluate a policy based on specific events is folly. It goes like this: USDGC is wildly popular, it's fee is $250; therefore, if we want a hugely popular event, we should charge $250. I assume everyone understands the folly in that argument.

I would think that publicizing in advance that your event will pay 50% of the field will do more than lowering the entry fees to boost attedance.

I do know this: paying deeper makes the payout more important in any player's assessment of the value of the tournament versus the cost of the tournament.

When you only pay out 1/3rd of the field or 2/5ths of the field, the payout is irrelevant to over half your players. Then player packs, other amenities, how well run the tournament is, and stuff like that is what is important to most players in deciding whether to play.

If more TDs pay deeper in accordance with the PDGA guidelines, payout becomes a bigger factor in the economic decision to play the tournament or do something else that weekend, because more players anticipate finishing in the prizes.

I've already seen at tournaments where the TDs payout by PDGA charts and do PDGA minimum payouts that payouts look just horrible.

Kelsey and I played one of those. She won in Men's Rec. She told Jenny she won. Jenny said, "What did you win?" Kelsey said, "Three." Jenny said, "Three discs?" Kelsey said, "No. 3 Funny." Jenny said, "I hope you enjoy your new mini marker!" :D

Publicity of the payout % may be important, but I'm sceptical that it will change much on a short term basis. I think effectiveness of this policy can only be measured after years. The important results will be field sizes and number of events played by lower rated players.

It is just my personal belief, but I doubt most players make conscious decisions on individual events like "Good, they are paying deeper, I will play." The effect on lower rated players is subtle and reinforced each time they play: they will occasionally get paid, but more importantly, they will almost always be in the hunt for last cash. Merely having a chance at cash, along with the occasional payday, will keep many of them interested and coming back.

That being said, I still think this is only half the battle. We must give more attractive betting options to everyone to truly make a difference. Additionally, I agree with Kevin's statement that the last cashers do not necessarily need to get their whole entry fee back, but if there is a lot of added cash, a 100% return may be possible.

Bruce...

I think here (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6262) is what you are referring to and here are the details for how it broke down that day.

Kelsey paid $15 to play in the tournament you are referring to.

She received a $10 voucher which was good for merchandise.

We took out $2 for PDGA fees as a C-Tier

We took out $2 per player for course rental and sanctioning.

If you type all of that into the PDGA spreadsheet it shows a payment of $3 for 1st place. We didn't bother taking out for the trophies because there were inexpensive and certainly nothing too special.

Do you have any suggestions as to how this could be handled differently?

By the way ... she's a great player and a great person and I like her alot so this is certainly not anything personal but it's great discussion. Also ... what exactly should the RECREATIONAL PDGA player be winning at C-Tier events like the one described above? I thought the point of being called a 'recreational' player is that you are not in it for the prizes, payout, and high entry fees. Instead you should be there to win a 'ribbon' and a genuine pat on the back.

Does anyone else have input about these types of divisions and situations?

Ter



I do know this: paying deeper makes the payout more important in any player's assessment of the value of the tournament versus the cost of the tournament.

When you only pay out 1/3rd of the field or 2/5ths of the field, the payout is irrelevant to over half your players. Then player packs, other amenities, how well run the tournament is, and stuff like that is what is important to most players in deciding whether to play.

If more TDs pay deeper in accordance with the PDGA guidelines, payout becomes a bigger factor in the economic decision to play the tournament or do something else that weekend, because more players anticipate finishing in the prizes.

I've already seen at tournaments where the TDs payout by PDGA charts and do PDGA minimum payouts that payouts look just horrible.

Kelsey and I played one of those. She won in Men's Rec. She told Jenny she won. Jenny said, "What did you win?" Kelsey said, "Three." Jenny said, "Three discs?" Kelsey said, "No. 3 Funny." Jenny said, "I hope you enjoy your new mini marker!" :D

I thought the point of being called a 'recreational' player is that you are not in it for the prizes, payout, and high entry fees. Instead you should be there to win a 'ribbon' and a genuine pat on the back.



I think your terms are confusing you here. Recreational is the name for the PDGA MA3 division. (A better name for the division might be novice, but then what will MA4 players be called?) Recreational is simply the name for those with a rating 875 and less. It has nothing to do with expectations nor should it be run any different with regards to payouts than say MA2 (Intermediate).

What you describe above as recreational is actually what one would call a trophy only player. There is a difference.

I vote for top 1/3rd

Also ... what exactly should the RECREATIONAL PDGA player be winning at C-Tier events like the one described above? I thought the point of being called a 'recreational' player is that you are not in it for the prizes, payout, and high entry fees. Instead you should be there to win a 'ribbon' and a genuine pat on the back.



There was 22 people playing in that division. I would have expected more than a $3 payout for winning, not a ribbon and a pat on the back. I think that you have missed the point, if you really believe that. This is not an issue of paying deep, she won that division!

The biggest thing that gets overlooked in this discussion is profit margin. We have several tournaments in our area that are in the $30-40 entry range with little to no added cash. Nobody is complaining about the entry fees or the lack of added cash because it's a well run series of tournaments. We average nearly 20 open players/event which pays roughly 8 spots. spots 7-8 maybe make $5 (essentially their money back), 5-6 make $10-15, 3rd doesn't even double his entry, and 1st barely *profits* over $100.

In this instance the entry fee is very affordable, thus the payout shouldn't have to be so deep to give as many people their money back as possible. Think about a $30 bet you would make at a casino. Pick any game you want, any bet you want. What game do you play where less than half the time you get money back at all, and if you do get paid it's less than half of your bet with the *grand prize* only being about triple your bet. Anyone who knows anything about gambling knows what a horrible bet any casino game is, but those bad bets pale in comparison to a tournament entry fee.

I'm going to go get some stats from the usdgc to illustrate a point for tournaments with larger entry fees and how much money is wasted at the back end of the payout.

Alright, the usdgc isn't the best example because there's enough added cash to pay however they want. That being said, if they only paid 20% of the field the payout would look something like this:

1. 12,000
2. 9,000
3. 7,000
4. 5,000
5. 4,000
6. 3,500
7. 3,000
8. 2,750
9. 2,500
10. 2,250
11-20 ~ 1700 each
21-30 ~ 1200 each
31-35 ~ 800 each

This point gets illustrated much better at large entry tournaments with less added cash. The point is that in a 90 player field, the top 10 spots ought to pay enough that it's worth the travel and practice time.

The point is that in a 90 player field, the top 10 spots ought to pay enough that it's worth the travel and practice time.




I think the counterpoint is that a 90-person field with payout heavily skewed to the top 10 will quickly become a 45 person field or less the following year.

You're not necessarily wrong. There are too many angles to cover in one post. I'll try to be brief, but the 45 pros you think would not participate shouldn't be playing pro anyway. And without those pros there couldn't be as many pro tournaments, which to me is fine as well. There are way too many tournaments anyway, at least for pros.

I guess I don't mind the number of tournaments so much as I mind the number that have pro fields. There are a good group of pros in Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin and Missouri, but we hardly ever play each other because there are probably at least 2 tournaments in each of our respective states every weekend.

I would agree that the number of pros should be cut in half or more (pssst... Expert division). But then they should be paid down 50% similar to the ball golf model, especially when there's added cash.

You're not necessarily wrong. There are too many angles to cover in one post. I'll try to be brief, but the 45 pros you think would not participate shouldn't be playing pro anyway. And without those pros there couldn't be as many pro tournaments, which to me is fine as well. There are way too many tournaments anyway, at least for pros.

I guess I don't mind the number of tournaments so much as I mind the number that have pro fields. There are a good group of pros in Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin and Missouri, but we hardly ever play each other because there are probably at least 2 tournaments in each of our respective states every weekend.

Here's something I can agree with you on. Way too many tournaments are allowed to offer pro divisions. I think if a tournament is not adding at least 10% to the pro purse over gross entry fees, it should not be allowed to offer pro divisions.

I just haven't been able to convey my feelings on this subject because it torments me at every tournament. What is the point of paying so deep? Are we awarding top 40% play or are we trying to diminish losses for as many players as possible? My average play now puts me in the bottom cash. I can't stand getting paid for that effort. I would rather be rewarded for playing well than for playing average. I've even played poorly and cashed. What's the most frustrating is that when I do play well and cash in a trophy spot, I don't make hardly anything.

The worst example I experienced was at a doubles tournament where (according to the TD) the pdga dictated they pay 4 out of 7 teams. The entry fee was $120/team. 4th paid $120, 3rd paid, $150, 2nd paid $180, and 1st was $300 after the cost of trophies was taken out. Individually, 3rd place risked $60 to win $15, 2nd risked $60 to make $30, and 1st barely doubled their money.

Let me clarify one thing. I'm not advocating that I need to make money in order to play. I'd gladly pay $20 to enter a tournament with nothing but a ribbon for 1st place. It's just when the system is set up for me to *gamble* a decent amount of money, there ought to be a payoff for that gamble.

Using your gambling scenario, the better games in Vegas are only 3-5% in favor of the house if someone knows what they're doing. That means more people lose than win on average. However, a decent percentage win or they might not come back and try again. If 60% lose and 40% win in the games where knowledge counts, isn't that similar to a tournament that pays 40% where the last place is at the breakeven point, just like Vegas?

Using your gambling scenario, the better games in Vegas are only 3-5% in favor of the house if someone knows what they're doing. That means more people lose than win on average. However, a decent percentage win or they might not come back and try again. If 60% lose and 40% win in the games where knowledge counts, isn't that similar to a tournament that pays 40% where the last place is at the breakeven point, just like Vegas?



Exactly. Except that when a disc golfer *wins* their bet, they make way less than their entry. This bad bet is compounded by the fact that there is no house edge.

Here's a tournament from this summer:

1 90 Jason Duden 23558 980 47 43 90 $160
2 85 Ken Franks 25447 992 46 44 90 $110
3 80 Clay Abernathey 25765 988 47 44 91 $80
4 75 Travis Flett 13179 988 52 41 93 $55
5 70 Eddie Mcculley 21251 976 49 45 94 $50
6 65 Matt Fausch 11160 944 50 45 95 $40
7 60 Aaron Martin 25075 967 52 45 97 $35
8 55 Tanner Duncan 18693 999 52 46 98
9 50 Chris Greenleaf 10816 979 48 51 99
9 50 Ernie Westmark 21627 975 51 48 99
11 40 Ryan Hesseltine 14590 955 53 47 100
11 40 Stephen Crow 21362 960 54 46 100
13 30 Mike Beeman 12449 950 55 47 102
14 25 Mike Clay 10313 954 53 50 103
14 25 Shane Stewart 19759 958 54 49 103
16 15 Jason Hansen 20187 954 53 51 104
16 15 Matt Mccarley 19133 954 55 49 104
18 5 Gabe Lueders 19765 923 55 55 110

18 players: Last cash made $5. The last 4 spots didn't even double their money. 2nd and 3rd place drove 2 hrs each way to play. That tournament shouldn't pay anymore than 4 spots. Nobody gets hurt, it's only a $30 entry.

There are really 2 side effects you are not taking into account.

1. If you reduce the number of paying spots, you increase the value of the tournament to the touring pros that may drop in and snipe the top 1-2 places.

2. How long will the same group of semi-pro players be willing to donate to the same 4-5 players with little chance of cashing ? Will any advanced players opt to move into the Pro ranks when they will stand little chance of cashing for a long time if ever ?

Pay 7-8 spots, I might cash, pay 2-4 spots, I can pick out the winners before I show up.

I think the counterpoint is that a 90-person field with payout heavily skewed to the top 10 will quickly become a 45 person field or less the following year.


And the year after that, it becomes 35, then 25, then 15. A 990 rated player that had a good expectated return with 90 entrants, has a diminished expected return with 35 and vitually none with 15. It's a scenario that any gambling book realizes eats away it customers.

Chuck's expert division will reattract some of the marginal players, but the same scenario will play itself out within the "real pro" division. It merely transfers the problem to another group.

Without added money, this sport is not ready to support top players. The idea that they will be supported by the entry fees of others has done nothing to grow the sport, and ironically has diminished the return of the next generation of top players.

I say we just triple the entry fees and pay the top 5%. People ought to flock to the tournaments.

I say we just triple the entry fees and pay the top 5%. People ought to flock to the tournaments.


Oh, you mean like poker tournaments? They have been hugely successful with nearly 1 million people playing one on nearly a daily basis. I'm all for it.

I say we just triple the entry fees and pay the top 5%. People ought to flock to the tournaments.


Oh, you mean like poker tournaments? They have been hugely successful with nearly 1 million people playing one on nearly a daily basis. I'm all for it.


Poker tournaments have extremely low relative entry fees unless it's a WSP tourney or similar.

Wildy popular, low entry fee.....sounds like the Am Division of the PDGA! Maybe the pro divisions should be $40 entry/winner take all affairs...

Maybe the pro divisions should be $40 entry/winner take all affairs...


Now that's GAMBLING!

[QUOTE]
The idea that they will be supported by the entry fees of others has done nothing to grow the sport, and ironically has diminished the return of the next generation of top players.

--------------------------------

James you write articulately and passionately, and I encourage you to apply your d board energies re PDGA event formats divisions etc to a seat on the Competition Committee where you'd be a valuable addition.

<font color="blue">Hi Brian, Glad to see you in this discussion. Getting into the Competition Committee is not that easy, or at least it wasn't for me. I'd love to be on that committee. James, you should go for it, if they let you in. </font>

But you lost me on the above comment re "nothing" and "diminishing." Its not difficult to take the tour of 15 10 5 and even 2 years ago, factor in inflation, and youve still got nothing but growth in terms of the sport the PDGA Tour and the benefits enjoyed by the top players ...

<font color="blue">You rightly defend PDGA accomplishments, they are not "nothing" and they are not "deminishing". </font>

Given the de facto model has been one of year after year of steady and sustainable (8-15%) if not unspectacular growth for 10+ years, how has the PDGA system hindered this? Would there be more courses in the ground and more PDGA events under different circumstances? Would the PDGA retain a higher % of 930-960 rated pros - its hard to say but few mediocre pro ball players spend more than a few years drifting around the minors, rather they make other life choices ... For such players the PDGA offers reclassification ...

<font color="blue">It is a tough arguement either way you slice it because one has no data the other has data based on a singular theory. What I mean is that we don't know if the current divisional/classification system has hindered or not because there is no evidence to prove that an alternative wouldn't have done better.

As far as reclassification is concerned, reclassified to what? Playing for each others entry fees in the form of prizes rather than cash? What kind of choice is that? What significance does it hold either way you slice it?</font>

The system and its evolution is the fruit of many different peoples labors over a generation: the PDGA leaders, the manufacturers, the TDs, the players, the other movers and shakers of the day, it is what it is ...

<font color="blue">Agreed, and we should all be greatful. What we shouldn't do is base future returns on past performance, nor should we be unambitious in what we try to make the future better. To enter a stage where we only take action to consolidate past gains without innovating to persue new areas of potential gain usually marks the end of most growth periods. Not saying that is what is happening to us, just that it could if we don't keep innovating. </font>

If there was a point along the path where the PDGA /leading TDs/ other dg leaders of the day zigged when they might have zagged, we could look at ca 1990 when the "Pay Ams stacks of prizes model" was launched by Duane Utech firstly and John Houck. But consensus (at least among some) is that this model has contributed in no small part to the growth of the PDGA and Am players and Am divisions at events ever since, as has the proliferation of Am divisions (which happily are fewer than a few years ago when every Am level and age group was possible ie Female Recreational Senior Grandmaster). Not to mention the generous Am prize structure also benefitted the manufacturers = more growth within the industry. And we all know that growth from below (read Ams) generally leads to growth at the top end ... the evolution of USA Soccer since the NASL folded is a prime example. (Of course one could say, well, growth from below is not PDGA Ams, its Juniors in every school across USA etc, but the still modest sized PDGA has 1. no capacity in terms of directly reaching thousands of schools today (see EDGE) and 2. is still firstly about tournament competition (as in without the events, what would be left of the PDGA?).

<font color="blue">I would disagree that "stacks of plastic" gave us a vibrant "Amateur" class, it gave us a maintainable protected set of divisions with the underlying hope of producing players for top cash divisions. I would argue that it didn't hail the beginning of a greater Amateur Classification, but rather that it hailed the end of any organized PDGA Amateur Competition, and thereby has actually hindered our potential growth, growth in an area we have no history in, an entirely new and innovative area. An area I might add that EDGE does address. But to my knowledge EDGE has not been embraced as it should, because we don't have anywhere for these new players to compete that is Amateur Competition as institutions that host EDGE programs would define it. </font>

What is clear is that if and when the forces of the day determine its time to go back to "true Amateurism", that the PDGA will potentially face a serious short term backlash from TDs and players. That will be an unenviable position the roots of which lie with a system begun by others long ago. I dont know if and when that day will come, but in the meantime the PDGA has flattened paytables, and reduced recommended entry fees for Ams to try and make more rational the Am event player cost/benefit equation.
But Im not sure this is helping more 940+ Ams turn Pro. Nor is the level of play by the top pros ... Ultimately though, its simply the individual members call, am I Pro or Am ? ...

<font color="blue">Agreed. But nothing of any real value is ever accomplished without causing a little discomfort. </font>

In terms of the word "pro" there are always 2 dictionary definitions in play. The PDGA recognizes "a person who competes for money" and not just "a person who earns his living thusly." In terms of the top pros, presumably their benefits as team members increase as manufacturers grow, and grow, there are more sponsored players than ever, there are more opportunities to travel further to big paying events than ever, top 1st year pros like Jernigan, Bubis, Bennett, Olsen, Scott-Wood are earning more than ever, and sponsors like Bite Shoes are saying now is the time to get involved in disc golf.

<font color="blue">True. But introducing a true amateur classification to our competition system would not preclude "prize" pros from becoming "cash" pros. Introduction of a completely new Amateur Classification does not mean that the current Prize Classification could not proceed as now, just without the Amateur moniker. </font>

Who is to say today that this continuum wont carry on until disc golf is on prime time TV (occasionally), the top 10 Oregon players (not just Avery and Dave) are making a half decent living from disc golf, and so on ...

<font color="blue">It well may, my worry is that it will take many times as long to accomplish this without an Amateur Classification. </font>

So, in view of your statement and my ramblings above, the question to you is: how can we be sure that had the PDGA and related forces chosen a different path that things would be measurably better today ?

<font color="blue">Brian, we can't. Nor does it mean that "Staying The Course" will assure success, nor even that we will be able to maintain our current growth numbers. So how do we decide what to do? Perhaps it is a philosophic difference, in my opinion we need to keep innovating and not rest exclusively on the things that have worked on the past. We need to be ambitious. </font>

Regards

BDH
PDGAHQ


<font color="blue"> </font>

<font color="blue">Best Regards,
Nick Kight </font>

PS: All proposed fixes like lower entry fees, flatter payouts, more divisions, reclassification, to the current competitive system are in my opinion futile so long as we ignore the fundament challenge of a complete lack of organized amateur competition. One thing that is readily evident is that there are but so many folks ready to compete for each others entry fees. I've never been completely comfortable with it myself.

I wouldn't call it rambling, it was one of the more coherent defenses of the PDGA's historical policies that I have read. However, I think one needs to be careful about those pro growth stats: I don't doubt top pros make more total dollars now than in the recent past, but the word "growth" can rightly be used to mean the total number of dedicated pros, or the earnings of the class as a whole, not just the top guys.

I'd also point out that total earnings ignores the cost of those earnings, and is therefore not the best stat. A better measure of the health of the pro class would be a historical look at the return on investment of the entire pro division. The "growth" of the top guys might simply be a result of higher fees, and increasing tournies. A look at return on investment might paint a different picture. They earn higher amounts, but they bet more per event and spend more (must include travel costs) to enter more events. I wonder if the net return is much greater. In other words, if the total growth in earnings was a result of a larger return on investment, I would expect to see a commensurate growth in the touring class.

An additional factor you mentioned was their benefits from manufacturers. I don't know for sure, but I suspect the health of the manufacturers has more to do with growth of disc golf as a whole, rather than growth in competitive palyers/events. In other words, I'm not sure that the welcome fact that the top guys get a lot from the manufacturers has anything to do with our competitive structure, it might just be the allure of disc golf in general.

Up to now, my argument has solely focused on the health at the very top. The prevailing winds at the PDGA have always steered us in that direction. I don't disagree with the goal, I just don't think our policies have been very efficient towards that goal. Just in my neck of the woods, the expected return on investment of Texas' top player in the late 80s is almost identical to what their return is today. The number of their peers within the division has hardly grown either.

btw. I was sloppy in my use of the term "diminish." It may not apply to the return on investment of future pros (that might be greater or slightly equal), but I can say that as long as people move up and drop out, the health of the future pro class will be dimished relative to what it could be.

I remember showing up to a tournament as an AmII in about 1995. They added 9 holes and still filled the tournament at 145 players. I remember thinking that soon they would not be able to host the ams and pros at the same venue ever again. It was almost 10yrs before I ever saw anything like that again.

Nick has always been dead on. The PDGA has grown in spite of itself. Everybody loves to play just to play. They'll continue to show up regardless of the system or how bad a return on investment. Most players aren't good enough to care about payouts.

It's not so much a case of right and wrong. I think Brian is right, I think James is right, but mainly I see opportunity for the PDGA to do the right thing and put us all in position to get it even RIGHTER!

Playing for each others entry fees has run its course, beating on that horse isn't going to produce an significant (ambitious) growth. A supported and promoted true amateur class, in my opinion, will open doors to atheletic orgs that have long given us the cold shoulder.

I've got to act locally on this. I'll report back what happens.